I just read an article that said that not only is it a mistake not to double down on 10vs2,but that hitting instead will increase your chances of losing the hand.I fully understand why one doubles in this situation ,but don't get why you increase your chances of losing the hand by not DDing.

I just read an article that said that not only is it a mistake not to double down on 10vs2,but that hitting instead will increase your chances of losing the hand.I fully understand why one doubles in this situation ,but don't get why you increase your chances of losing the hand by not DDing.

You should double 10 vs 2 but you very slightly increase your chances of winning by hitting. This is because you may draw a 2, when you hit, and now you would be in a slightly better position if you were to hit rather than having to stand (if you had doubled).

Thats how it would appear to me,but unless I misread the article by Ken Smith,he states you DECREASE your chances of winning by hitting.I gave the magazine away to my seatmate without getting a chance to read the article.

Thats how it would appear to me,but unless I misread the article by Ken Smith,he states you DECREASE your chances of winning by hitting.I gave the magazine away to my seatmate without getting a chance to read the article.

It had to be a typo. I once saw something by Henry T. on his web site. Similar type mistake...

If you double you get a card. If you hit, you get a card. The two plays are _identical_ except for two things. With the double you double your risk and gain. And with the hit, you still have the opportunity to hit again. If you choose to not hit again, your percentage of winning hands will be identical to that of the double...

Extrapolating from the EV charts in Wong's Professional Blackjack, I get a won/lost percentage for hitting 10 vs. 2 of .5935/.4065 (counting pushes as a half win and a half loss). For doubling, I get .5925/.4075 -- just a hair more losers by doubling.

I also have a book entitled 190,000,000 Hands of Blackjack by Bill Brown. In it he has a printout for doubling and hitting with 10 vs. 2 a total of 39,604 times each (4 decks). When hitting, it produced W.5528/L.3630/P.0842. When doubling, it produced W.5521/L.3684/P.0795. Again, a small number of extra losers by doubling.

Okay.Mr Renzeys number seem to back up the fact that you decrease your loss by doubling.But how?Only thing I can think of is if hitting,you have a 1/13 chance of getting a 2.Then,following BS you hit your 12 vs 2.You'll bust your hand more. Anything else that might explain it?

NYB, I think the point is that you actually drop your chance of winning *the hand* by doubling slightly. However, since you are betting double, the amount of money you are winning is greater (i.e. you'd rather win 2 hands at 0.592 odds in your favor than 1 hand at 0.593 odds).

Thus, I think the article that you originally read was poorly phrased.

NYB, I think the point is that you actually drop your chance of winning *the hand* by doubling slightly. However, since you are betting double, the amount of money you are winning is greater (i.e. you'd rather win 2 hands at 0.592 odds in your favor than 1 hand at 0.593 odds).

Thus, I think the article that you originally read was poorly phrased.

I have a copy of the article being emailed,I'll post the section when I have it in hand.Perhaps I misread it,or it was a typo.

Than just hitting it you will close to the same number of hands weather if you double or just hit you might win 1 or 2 more hands per 1,000 if you just hit but you will only win half as much than if you double because you will win more than 50% of the time taking just one more random card.